Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1887-10-19
An important Question.
The XII amendment to the Constitution
of the United States reads:

The XII amendment to the Constitution
of the United States reads:
The judicial power of the United States
shall not be construed to extend to any suit
in law and equity, commenced or prosecut-
ed against one of the United States by citi-
zens of another State, or by citizens or SUBJ
jects of any foreign State.
This amendment to the Constitution,
says the Norfolk Landmark, was proposed
and adopted for the purpose of settling for
ever the question Of the liability of individ-
ual States to be brought under the juris-
diction of the Courts of the United States.
except as between them and the General
Government. In old times, and even up to
the present decade, this amendment, in; its
plain meaning and spirit, was regar ded as
good law, and respected accordingly. The
decisions of the United States Supreme
Court made no such fine distinctions as
that suit against an officer of a State, act
ing in obedience to statute, could be sued
for his official acts, without suing the State
ITSELF The doctrine that q suit against
State officer by citizen of another State,
or foreign State, is not suit against the
State itself, within the meaning of the XI
amendment, is modern doctrine, and
Republican doctrine, and, we think. dam
gerous doctrine, because it was conceived
and enunciated for the purpose of evadipg
and overcoming the plain provision of the
constitutional amendment. The first de-
cision in this direction was the case of
| Antoni against GreenhoU in the Supreme
Court, since which time many cases of
similar import presenting different phases
of the same question have been decided in
the same way by that tribunal. The pres
emit situation of affairs, the most serious SO
far, arises from the act of May, 1887, known
as the coupon crusher, which, taken in con-
nection with two acts passed in January,
1886, all of which are familiar to our read
ers, made it practically impossible to prove
the genuineness of coupons offered in pay
ment of obligations to the State. The cou-
pom crusher statutes directed suit to be
brought by the officers of the State against
the taxpayer refusing to pay except in cou-
pons, the genuineness of which he could not
establish, and the present cases which Judge
Bond has just decided, are suits to eDjoin
the execution of the act known as the cou-
pom crusher, which has been declared un-
constitutional because impairing the obliga-
ton of contracts. The State of Virginia
relied upon the XII Amendment in the whole
contest, holding that the Federal Courts had
no jurisdiction, and that by section 72O of
the Revised Statutes the injunction was for
hidden. The plaintiffs relied chiefly on the
case of Osborn rs. Bank, reported in 9
Wheaton, the doctrine of which is that the
United States Courts have jurisdiction to
restrain the execution of an unconstitutional
act Judge Bond has sustained this view,
and enjoined every officer of the State Of
Virginia from performing his duty as pre-.
, scribed by the Act of May, 1887. The Of
ficers of the State are now in custody for
, contempt, having disobeyed this injunction,
and Virginia is now before the Supreme
, Court of the United States asking decision
upon it. This is deeply interesting case, for
upon the decision of the Supreme Court Of
! the United States will depend the future
: course of the State of Virginia in respect te
that apparently interminable and really
!, vexatious questionable public debt.